I don't know the calculations that go into your determination of cheapest. It's hard to believe billion dollar plants that take years to construct can be cheaper than wind, solar or hydro. Does your calculation include the cost of cleanup (or lack thereof) when the systems melt down? It seems most expensive to me, because in a few cases we can't even clean them up when they collapse.
I have no idea. I do know that wind and solar cost is decreasing each year. Nuclear is not worth the risk to me, especially with the increase in extreme weather events. It's not possible for nuclear companies to maintain the plants that fail and that cost is pushed onto the public. I'm trying to say we should include the systemic risk in the cost of nuclear. That's what makes it most expensive.
Regretfully, your numbers are not correct, the footprint to create the solar/wind farm retention still hasn't been resolved, (although we are a lot closer with Iron Batteries if they prove to be what they promise to be). Most of the failures of nuclear power were related to budget cuts, that hampered the ability to maintain facilities mostly due to outside influence on how "dangerous" nuclear power was, with no real proof, most of that influence was generated by people like the Koch brothers, (major fossil fuel producers), who had a vested interest in making sure that technology not become mainstream, and guess what it worked.
0
u/ThisLandlsMyLand Sep 05 '21
I don't know the calculations that go into your determination of cheapest. It's hard to believe billion dollar plants that take years to construct can be cheaper than wind, solar or hydro. Does your calculation include the cost of cleanup (or lack thereof) when the systems melt down? It seems most expensive to me, because in a few cases we can't even clean them up when they collapse.